disciples, must have known whether they wrote the books ascribed to them. Had they not been the authors, they would have denied them, and Barnabas instead of quoting them, would have repeated the denial. The evidence then is decisive; the Gospel histories were written at that age, and the disciples of Christ were the authors.

23. We have now arrived at the end of the chain of evidence to be produced. We begun with our own day, and we have from this followed up the Gospel histories from year to year, until we have at last carried them to the very feet of the disciples of Christ. And now we would ask, Where is the man who would remove them from this? Where is the man who can steadily look this mass of historical evidence in the face, and not blush to affirm that these books were written two or three hundred years after Christ? Yea, where is he who would not blush to deny that they were written in the days and by the very hands of the disciples themselves? The man who would deny this, is bound to deny, if he would be consistent, the truth of all history-he should refuse to believe that such men as Alexander, Julius Cæsar, or Brutus lived, or performed the works attributed to them; he should reject the histories of Tacitus, which, as we have seen are not supported by half the evidence; and he should deny that Cicero ever wrote the Orations, or that Dion Cassius was the author of the histories which go in his name— yea, he should deny the genuineness of John Calvin's works, and affirm that they were written long after his time; and by the same rule should in twenty years

from this time, or even now, reject the letters of Washington and the works of Franklin, and assert that they were forged years after their death. This is consistent, this is fair: we only ask him to treat all other history as he treats the Christian history; and this is surely a reasonable and proper request. If he believes that the Eneid was written by Virgil, and at the time stated, because this is the voice of all history, let him by the same rule believe that the Gospels were written by the disciples of Christ, and at the time stated.

24. But if he persist in refusing credit to the Gospel histories, we ask him to give a reason for it; we cannot take the broad unsupported assertion that they are not the works of the disciples, as proof that they are not; we must have something more than this. We have given him our reasons for believing that they are; we have produced an unbroken series of proof from our own day to that of the disciples, every part of which testifies to this fact. Now, if he does not believe it, let him produce a like unbroken series of proof to the contrary. Let him begin at this date and go back, as we have done on the other side, with an array of historical evidence which shall testify at every step that these books were not written by the disciples-let him do this, (and we shall be satisfied with nothing less,) and we will then confess that he has done something towards establishing his position. Or if, instead of establishing

his own, he prefer to attack ours, let him place his finger upon that link in the chain of proof presented him, which he would strike out; and if he can prove a flaw, it shall be struck out. But let him remember that if

he even accomplish this, he has done but little; the chain is broken indeed, but not destroyed, and he has yet to go back from this, and prove all the rest, one by one, to be false likewise, before his task is finished. Now neither of these has ever yet been done, and until one or both are done, we hold that it is established beyond dispute, that THE GOSPEL HISTORIES WERE WRITTEN BY THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.*

* We cannot deny ourselves the privilege of adding here the confessions of several noted Deists. Chubb admits that the books of the New Testament are the production of the disciples and Apostles of Christ. Hobbes acknowledges that "the writings of the New Testament are as ancient as the times of the Apostles; and that they were written by persons who lived in those times, some of whom saw the things they relate." The celebrated Lord Bolingbroke says, "It is out of dispute that we have in our hands the Gospels of Matthew and John, who give themselves fout as eye and ear witnesses of all that Christ did and taught." Horne i. 205. These men felt the force of historical evidence, and they knew too much to reject it. Gibbon may be added to their number.

SECTION III.

HAVE THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BEEN CORRUPTED?

1. As there has been much said in relation to the question which stands at the head of this section, we have thought it might be proper, and acceptable, to give it a brief consideration. The assertion has often been made by the enemies of the Christian faith, that the Scriptures of the New Testament have been so much corrupted, that it is now altogether impossible for us to tell what was, and what was not, written by the disciples of Jesus. And suppose, instead of replying to this, we pronounce it mere assertion, as with all propriety we might, and, according to the rules of argument, call upon the unbeliever for proof? What would be his answer? He says the books of the New Testament have been greatly corrupted. We desire the evidence of this; let him point to any particular portion, as being of this character, and by an appeal to the authority of history prove his assertion, and so far as that portion is concerned we will submit. It is not enough to say that they may have been corrupted, he must prove to a demonstration that they have been corrupted. This is

what he requires of us in regard to all our positions, and he ought not to shrink from his own rule.

2. We are not disposed to stop here, however, though in justice we might do it. With many, who are not in the habit of thinking closely in these matters, the assertion in question has passed in its full extent as undoubted truth; and the many attempts made to show its probability from circumstances, have tended to strengthen the conviction. There has been much declamation about the ambitious designs of an aspiring priesthood; the ignorance of the people; the darkness of the middle ages; the scarcity of copies of the Scriptures; and many other like particulars, for the purpose of giv ing an air of plausibility to the supposition. And it is through this studied mixture of a little truth with much error, this skillful blending of well known historical facts with speculations and false inferences, that not a few, who do but skim over the surface of things, have been led into the conclusion that the New Testament is too much altered and corrupted to be trusted.

3. In the observations to follow we shall endeavor to point out some particulars which will show the weakness of this position, and the utter impracticability of the supposed corruption. In the first place, then, it is well known that the original manuscripts or autographs of the writers, or at least some of them, were preserved for many years after their death. Ignatius appealed to them in the first century, and in the second century Tertullian affirms that they were carefully preserved in the Christian churches, and urges those